The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2014, 09:09 PM   #26
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,519
Default

Al-Maliki, like Assad, like Obama are all effectively dictators. Ruling by executive fiat, while diminishing individual freedoms, and excluding opponents from government.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 09:27 PM   #27
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,985

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhat01 View Post
I tend to agree with that. But it chaps my ass to think about the dudes that gave their lives over there to have it revert back just months after we leave. This just looks like it has all the makings. Syria, Turkey, Iran etc. maybe we should just let them kill each other and burn the whole piece of **** down. I don't know.
now or 10 years in the future,this was going to happen.
**** like this only proves why it was a huge **** up to invade Iraq.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 09:34 PM   #28
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhat01 View Post
I tend to agree with that. But it chaps my ass to think about the dudes that gave their lives over there to have it revert back just months after we leave. This just looks like it has all the makings. Syria, Turkey, Iran etc. maybe we should just let them kill each other and burn the whole piece of **** down. I don't know.
The great folly of trying to impose our ideas on to a people, instead of showing them through action and evidence that our ideas are better.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 09:41 PM   #29
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,519
Default

Just like Libya.

Just like Egypt.

Just like Ukraine.

Just like Somalia.


All illegal de-stabilization efforts by the Obama administration that have led to millions of dead and wounded civilians.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 09:49 PM   #30
jhat01
Ring of Famer
 
jhat01's Avatar
 
Knuckle Dragging Homer

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West River
Posts: 1,853

Adopt-a-Bronco:
ManRam
Default

This started back in January..here's what our excuse for a leader had to say about it then: "the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant." Any credibility this idiot possessed is now swirling around the toilet bowl.
jhat01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 09:56 PM   #31
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,519
Default

People around the world are sick and tired of the IMF, by means of the US military, sponsoring warlords to de-stabilize legitimate local governments in order to debt enslave everyone.

When will it stop? When are people going to get their heads out of the sand and stop promoting and voting for these criminals?

Bush, Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all the same. Our government has been taken over by people who DO NOT have the best interests of the American people in mind.

Too bad half the people in the US love slavery just as much as the IMF does.

Last edited by pricejj; 06-11-2014 at 10:03 PM..
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2014, 11:19 PM   #32
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 5,224
Default

$1.7 Trillion, plus another $490 Billion owed to veterans. And we killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians in the process. BUT! We got those WMD's and all that free oil flowing to us, so I guess it was worth it. And obviously food stamps is the reason there is a deficit.
bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 02:03 AM   #33
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
I'm still wondering what Obama is going to do about Boko Haram? He threatened them last week and they kidnapped 20 more girls. What happened to the twitter campaign? Forgotten in one week? What happened to "our girls"? Meanwhile 1500 people in Africa die PER DAY from Malaria, and we're mandated to purchased worthless skyrocketing insurance.

Obama's own special brand of Socialism certainly has a way of radicalizing everyone around the world. Turns out people don't like being told how to live. They also don't respond well to being threatened by an idiot with control over the most powerful military in the world.
Since you haven't been paying attention the US spent about 40 support troop to provide INTEL, Logistics and Planning Operations about 3 months ago. They have also been providing UAV overflights to gather intel. The type operation take time to develop and support.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 02:04 AM   #34
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Bush had it under control, Obama failed to get an agreement that would let troops stay for security, country falls apart. Obama does nothing. Typical.
Most of the Iraq troops that ran way were trained under Bush.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 05:09 AM   #35
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,255

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

The one-size-fits-all response from the Right: Thanks, Obama!
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:01 AM   #36
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,881

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Personally I don't think most give a ****,just glad to be out of there.
Some day, in Iraq(/n), AfPak, Libya, etc we will be made to give a ****.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:05 AM   #37
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,255

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

By Juan Cole

The fall of Mosul to the radical, extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a set of historical indictments. Mosul is Iraq’s second largest city, population roughly 2 million (think Houston) until today, when much of the population was fleeing. While this would-be al-Qaeda affiliate took part of Falluja and Ramadi last winter, those are smaller, less consequential places and in Falluja tribal elders persuaded the prime minister not to commit the national army to reducing the city.

It is an indictment of the George W. Bush administration, which falsely said it was going into Iraq because of a connection between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. There was none. Ironically, by invading, occupying, weakening and looting Iraq, Bush and Cheney brought al-Qaeda into the country and so weakened it as to allow it actually to take and hold territory in our own time. They put nothing in place of the system they tore down. They destroyed the socialist economy without succeeding in building private firms or commerce. They put in place an electoral system that emphasizes religious and ethnic divisions. They helped provoke a civil war in 2006-2007, and took credit for its subsiding in 2007-2008, attributing it to a troop escalation of 30,000 men (not very plausible). In fact, the Shiite militias won the civil war on the ground, turning Baghdad into a largely Shiite city and expelling many Sunnis to places like Mosul. There are resentments.
Those who will say that the US should have left troops in Iraq do not say how that could have happened. The Iraqi parliament voted against it. There was never any prospect in 2011 of the vote going any other way. Because the US occupation of Iraq was horrible for Iraqis and they resented it. Should the Obama administration have reinvaded and treated the Iraqi parliament the way Gen. Bonaparte treated the French one?

I hasten to say that the difficulty Baghdad is having with keeping Mosul is also an indictment of the Saddam Hussein regime (1979-2003), which pioneered the tactic of sectarian rule, basing itself on a Sunni-heavy Baath Party in the center-north and largely neglecting or excluding the Shiite South. Now the Shiites have reversed that strategy, creating a Baghdad-Najaf-Basra power base.

Mosul’s changed circumstances are also an indictment of the irresponsible use to which Sunni fundamentalists in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Oil Gulf are putting their riches. The high petroleum prices, usually over $100 a barrel, of the past few years in a row, have injected trillions of dollars into the Gulf. Some of that money has sloshed into the hands of people who rather admired Usama Bin Laden and who are perfectly willing to fund his clones to take over major cities like Aleppo and Mosul. The vaunted US Treasury Department ability to stop money transfers by people whom Washington does not like has faltered in this case. Is it because Washington is de facto allied with the billionaire Salafis of Kuwait City in Syria, where both want to see the Bashar al-Assad government overthrown and Iran weakened? The descent of the US into deep debt, and the emergence of Gulf states and sovereign wealth funds is a tremendous shift of geopolitical power to Riyadh, Kuwait City and Abu Dhabi, who can now simply buy Egyptian domestic and foreign policy away from Washington. They are also trying to buy a Salafi State of Syria and a Salafi state of northern and western Iraq.

The fall of Mosul is an indictment of the new Iraqi army, which is well equipped and some of its troops well trained , and which seems to have just run away from the ISIS fighters, allowing some heavy weapons to fall into their hands.
It is an indictment of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and of the Shiite political elite that took over Iraq from 2005, and which has never been interested in reconciliation with the Sunni Arabs. It is not merely a sectarian issue. The particular Shiite parties that have consistently won elections are those of the religious right among Shiites. Before the CIA cooperated with the Baath Party to destroy the Iraqi Left, many Shiites were secular and the Iraqi Communist Party united them with many of the country’s Jews back in the 1950s. The Shiite religious parties dream of a Shiite state. Many want to implement a fundamentalist vision of Islamic law. There is little place for Sunni Kurds or Sunni Arabs in such a state. Al-Maliki himself seems to have a problem with the Sunnis, and his inability to integrate them into his government means that he is losing them to Sunni radicals. His inability to reach out to Sunni Arabs made plausible what the entire Iraqi parliament rejected when it came out, the Biden plan for the partition of the country. Usama Nujaifi, parliamentarian from Mosul and speaker of the Iraqi parliament, was driven to say a few years ago that for the first time since WW I, the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement (envisioning a French Syria and British Iraq) was up for renegotiation.
It is also an indictment of the shameful European imperial scramble for the Middle East during and after WW I and the failed barracuda colonialism of the interwar period, as London and Paris sought oil and other resources, and strategic advantage, in areas they had promised the League of Nations they would prepare for independence. In one instance, they just gave away Ottoman Palestine to a European population, leading to 12 million stateless and displaced people to this day.

During WW I, British diplomats promised lots of people lots of things, and were not embarrassed to double book. The foreign office promised France Syria but the Arab Bureau in Cairo promised Syria to Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Cairo wanted Iraq for Sharif Hussein, but so did New Delhi (the British Government of India couldn’t see the difference between ruling Iraq and ruling Sindh or Rajasthan).

As the war was winding down it was clear that the Ottoman Empire would collapse. The French saw Mosul, with its oil wealth, as part of Syria. The British in New Delhi and in Cairo, for all their wrangling, agreed that it should be part of Iraq, which British and British Indian troops were conquering.

When British Prime Minister Lloyd George met with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau at Versailles, he was eager to push back French claims on Mosul. Since the British and their Arab allies had taken Damascus from the Ottomans, some wanted to renege on the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 altogether. President Woodrow Wilson was also there, with his ideas of self-determination for the peoples of the former empires, and he didn’t want to just see an imperial grab for them. Clemenceau is said to have remarked that he felt he was caught between Jesus Christ and Napoleon.
When Lloyd George met with Clemenceau, the latter is said to have asked him, “What do you want?” Lloyd George said, “Mosul.” Clemenceau agreed. Anything else? “Jerusalem.” You shall have it. In return, the French were assured of Syria, which meant that Lloyd George had betrayed Sharif Hussein and his son Faisal b. Hussein, then in Damascus, for the sake of Mosul’s oil. Afterwards it is said that Lloyd George felt he had gained these boons from Clemenceau so easily that he should have asked for more.

Integrating Mosul into British Iraq, over which London placed Faisal b. Hussein as imported king after the French unceremoniously ushered him from Damascus, allowed the British to depend on the old Ottoman Sunni elite, including former Ottoman officers trained in what is now Turkey. This strategy marginalized the Shiite south, full of poor peasants and small towns, which, if they gave the British trouble, were simply bombed by the RAF. (Iraq under British rule was intensively aerially bombed for a decade and RAF officers were so embarrassed by these proceedings that they worried about the British public finding out.)

To rule fractious Syria, the French (1920-1943) appealed to religious minorities such as the Alawites and Christians to divide and rule; Alawite peasants were willing to join the colonial military as proud Damascene Sunni families largely were not, but when the age of military dictatorships overtook the postcolonial Middle east, the Alawites were in a good position to take over Syria, which they definitively did in 1970.

The countries now known as Syria and Iraq came into modernity having been for 400 years part of the Ottoman Empire. Sometimes it ruled what is now Iraq as a single province with roughly its modern borders, sometimes it ruled it as a set of smaller provinces. At some points the city of Mosul was the seat of a province of the same name. More often its top official reported to the Sultan in Istanbul through Baghdad. Mosul, a large urban center on the caravan and river trade routes stretching to Aleppo and Tripoli to the west and to Basra and India to the southeast, was a major urban place. It was very different from southern Iraq, which through the 19th century converted to Shiite Islam (in part under Indian Shiite influence) and was less urban and more tribal. Still, it was united with the south by trade along the Tigris and by the structures of Ottoman rule.

PM Nouri al-Maliki can only get Iraq back by allying with nationalist Sunnis in the north. Otherwise, for him simply brutally to occupy the city with Shiite troops and artillery and aerial bombing will make him look like his neighbor, Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/prom...n-history.html
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:35 AM   #38
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,881

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I agree with most of what Juan says, other than he seems to be going out of his way to neglect Obama's hand.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-strikes.html
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:38 AM   #39
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,924

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
By Juan Cole

The fall of Mosul to the radical, extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a set of historical indictments. Mosul is Iraq’s second largest city, population roughly 2 million (think Houston) until today, when much of the population was fleeing. While this would-be al-Qaeda affiliate took part of Falluja and Ramadi last winter, those are smaller, less consequential places and in Falluja tribal elders persuaded the prime minister not to commit the national army to reducing the city.

It is an indictment of the George W. Bush administration, which falsely said it was going into Iraq because of a connection between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. There was none. Ironically, by invading, occupying, weakening and looting Iraq, Bush and Cheney brought al-Qaeda into the country and so weakened it as to allow it actually to take and hold territory in our own time. They put nothing in place of the system they tore down. They destroyed the socialist economy without succeeding in building private firms or commerce. They put in place an electoral system that emphasizes religious and ethnic divisions. They helped provoke a civil war in 2006-2007, and took credit for its subsiding in 2007-2008, attributing it to a troop escalation of 30,000 men (not very plausible). In fact, the Shiite militias won the civil war on the ground, turning Baghdad into a largely Shiite city and expelling many Sunnis to places like Mosul. There are resentments.
Those who will say that the US should have left troops in Iraq do not say how that could have happened. The Iraqi parliament voted against it. There was never any prospect in 2011 of the vote going any other way. Because the US occupation of Iraq was horrible for Iraqis and they resented it. Should the Obama administration have reinvaded and treated the Iraqi parliament the way Gen. Bonaparte treated the French one?

I hasten to say that the difficulty Baghdad is having with keeping Mosul is also an indictment of the Saddam Hussein regime (1979-2003), which pioneered the tactic of sectarian rule, basing itself on a Sunni-heavy Baath Party in the center-north and largely neglecting or excluding the Shiite South. Now the Shiites have reversed that strategy, creating a Baghdad-Najaf-Basra power base.

Mosul’s changed circumstances are also an indictment of the irresponsible use to which Sunni fundamentalists in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Oil Gulf are putting their riches. The high petroleum prices, usually over $100 a barrel, of the past few years in a row, have injected trillions of dollars into the Gulf. Some of that money has sloshed into the hands of people who rather admired Usama Bin Laden and who are perfectly willing to fund his clones to take over major cities like Aleppo and Mosul. The vaunted US Treasury Department ability to stop money transfers by people whom Washington does not like has faltered in this case. Is it because Washington is de facto allied with the billionaire Salafis of Kuwait City in Syria, where both want to see the Bashar al-Assad government overthrown and Iran weakened? The descent of the US into deep debt, and the emergence of Gulf states and sovereign wealth funds is a tremendous shift of geopolitical power to Riyadh, Kuwait City and Abu Dhabi, who can now simply buy Egyptian domestic and foreign policy away from Washington. They are also trying to buy a Salafi State of Syria and a Salafi state of northern and western Iraq.

The fall of Mosul is an indictment of the new Iraqi army, which is well equipped and some of its troops well trained , and which seems to have just run away from the ISIS fighters, allowing some heavy weapons to fall into their hands.
It is an indictment of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and of the Shiite political elite that took over Iraq from 2005, and which has never been interested in reconciliation with the Sunni Arabs. It is not merely a sectarian issue. The particular Shiite parties that have consistently won elections are those of the religious right among Shiites. Before the CIA cooperated with the Baath Party to destroy the Iraqi Left, many Shiites were secular and the Iraqi Communist Party united them with many of the country’s Jews back in the 1950s. The Shiite religious parties dream of a Shiite state. Many want to implement a fundamentalist vision of Islamic law. There is little place for Sunni Kurds or Sunni Arabs in such a state. Al-Maliki himself seems to have a problem with the Sunnis, and his inability to integrate them into his government means that he is losing them to Sunni radicals. His inability to reach out to Sunni Arabs made plausible what the entire Iraqi parliament rejected when it came out, the Biden plan for the partition of the country. Usama Nujaifi, parliamentarian from Mosul and speaker of the Iraqi parliament, was driven to say a few years ago that for the first time since WW I, the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement (envisioning a French Syria and British Iraq) was up for renegotiation.
It is also an indictment of the shameful European imperial scramble for the Middle East during and after WW I and the failed barracuda colonialism of the interwar period, as London and Paris sought oil and other resources, and strategic advantage, in areas they had promised the League of Nations they would prepare for independence. In one instance, they just gave away Ottoman Palestine to a European population, leading to 12 million stateless and displaced people to this day.

During WW I, British diplomats promised lots of people lots of things, and were not embarrassed to double book. The foreign office promised France Syria but the Arab Bureau in Cairo promised Syria to Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Cairo wanted Iraq for Sharif Hussein, but so did New Delhi (the British Government of India couldn’t see the difference between ruling Iraq and ruling Sindh or Rajasthan).

As the war was winding down it was clear that the Ottoman Empire would collapse. The French saw Mosul, with its oil wealth, as part of Syria. The British in New Delhi and in Cairo, for all their wrangling, agreed that it should be part of Iraq, which British and British Indian troops were conquering.

When British Prime Minister Lloyd George met with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau at Versailles, he was eager to push back French claims on Mosul. Since the British and their Arab allies had taken Damascus from the Ottomans, some wanted to renege on the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 altogether. President Woodrow Wilson was also there, with his ideas of self-determination for the peoples of the former empires, and he didn’t want to just see an imperial grab for them. Clemenceau is said to have remarked that he felt he was caught between Jesus Christ and Napoleon.
When Lloyd George met with Clemenceau, the latter is said to have asked him, “What do you want?” Lloyd George said, “Mosul.” Clemenceau agreed. Anything else? “Jerusalem.” You shall have it. In return, the French were assured of Syria, which meant that Lloyd George had betrayed Sharif Hussein and his son Faisal b. Hussein, then in Damascus, for the sake of Mosul’s oil. Afterwards it is said that Lloyd George felt he had gained these boons from Clemenceau so easily that he should have asked for more.

Integrating Mosul into British Iraq, over which London placed Faisal b. Hussein as imported king after the French unceremoniously ushered him from Damascus, allowed the British to depend on the old Ottoman Sunni elite, including former Ottoman officers trained in what is now Turkey. This strategy marginalized the Shiite south, full of poor peasants and small towns, which, if they gave the British trouble, were simply bombed by the RAF. (Iraq under British rule was intensively aerially bombed for a decade and RAF officers were so embarrassed by these proceedings that they worried about the British public finding out.)

To rule fractious Syria, the French (1920-1943) appealed to religious minorities such as the Alawites and Christians to divide and rule; Alawite peasants were willing to join the colonial military as proud Damascene Sunni families largely were not, but when the age of military dictatorships overtook the postcolonial Middle east, the Alawites were in a good position to take over Syria, which they definitively did in 1970.

The countries now known as Syria and Iraq came into modernity having been for 400 years part of the Ottoman Empire. Sometimes it ruled what is now Iraq as a single province with roughly its modern borders, sometimes it ruled it as a set of smaller provinces. At some points the city of Mosul was the seat of a province of the same name. More often its top official reported to the Sultan in Istanbul through Baghdad. Mosul, a large urban center on the caravan and river trade routes stretching to Aleppo and Tripoli to the west and to Basra and India to the southeast, was a major urban place. It was very different from southern Iraq, which through the 19th century converted to Shiite Islam (in part under Indian Shiite influence) and was less urban and more tribal. Still, it was united with the south by trade along the Tigris and by the structures of Ottoman rule.

PM Nouri al-Maliki can only get Iraq back by allying with nationalist Sunnis in the north. Otherwise, for him simply brutally to occupy the city with Shiite troops and artillery and aerial bombing will make him look like his neighbor, Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/prom...n-history.html
The tl;dr version = Iraq is the same boondoggle as all the other banana republics we've tried to build. What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:53 AM   #40
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,255

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The tl;dr version = Iraq is the same boondoggle as all the other banana republics we've tried to build. What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Bingo!
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 06:54 AM   #41
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,255

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I agree with most of what Juan says, other than he seems to be going out of his way to neglect Obama's hand.
Blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the guy with the mop who comes in after the party to clean up.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 07:21 AM   #42
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,881

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Blaming Obama for this mess is like blaming the guy with the mop who comes in after the party to clean up.
He has his share of blame. If he hadn't decapitated Libya and given us the hard sell on Syrian intervention, you may have a point. But itching to meddle in Syria while ignoring Iraqi pleas for similar help?

Stinks of politics. Because there's no reasoning in it.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 08:40 AM   #43
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,664

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

The same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan. Egypt, Syria, and Libya will be pretty much the same if not already. Obama the foreign affairs expert. But, but Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, Lincoln ...
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 08:49 AM   #44
Smiling Assassin27
Louisville Soul Train
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,157

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Psst. Mr. President, you may wanna tell the terrorists that the war is over. They don't seem to have received that memo.
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 09:11 AM   #45
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,555

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

So we went into a country, killed thier long time stable leader, killed their citizens, badly damaged their cities and intitutions and pushed a Western style deomocracy on a people with deep theocratic rule history embeded in warlord and tribal organization and infighting....


and its goign to collpase into Civil War between religious sects?


Never saw that coming. Why can't these people just be good little faux brown Americans and do what is in our best interest?


Its so stupid its comical. and we borrowed 2 Trillion to do it.


B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 09:14 AM   #46
B-Large
Ring of Famer
 
B-Large's Avatar
 
Expunged... Accidently?

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,555

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The tl;dr version = Iraq is the same boondoggle as all the other banana republics we've tried to build. What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

That is not the definition of Insanity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity
B-Large is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 09:50 AM   #47
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 5,224
Default

Hussein kept the genie in the bottle. Bush pulled the cork.
bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 09:58 AM   #48
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,881

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombay View Post
Hussein kept the genie in the bottle. Bush pulled the cork.
A mistake Obama's repeated at least a couple more times.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133614...t-Arab-Leaders
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-death-gaddafi

Quote:
Obama hails death of Muammar Gaddafi as foreign policy success
President warns other Middle Eastern dictators, particularly Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, that they could be next
Thanks, tough guy.

Egypt may not turn out as ugly as it could've been. Had their strong central military not gotten tired of the whole experiment and rolled the clock back to Hosni-style autocratic rule.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 10:43 AM   #49
Luke Lucas
Just Drafted
 
Luke Lucas's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 37

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This is just my personal opinion:

Not one more drop of American blood, nor one more dime of American treasure for this pile of crap in the sand.

If the people of Iraq want their own country, then they should fight for it.
Luke Lucas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2014, 10:45 AM   #50
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Bush had it under control, Obama failed to get an agreement that would let troops stay for security, country falls apart. Obama does nothing. Typical.





The Lone Bolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Denver Broncos